4 years, 5 months ago-
Posts
-
-
In its simplest form I am referring to “Teaching and Learning” as it should be.
As a Kodaly inspired practitioner I am very pro the use of solfege. However, I have recently developed concerns regarding the delivery of programmes and the nature of certification courses as presented by various organisations around the world. These courses train people to teach in a specific way and grant them a certificate at the end. My worry is that such ‘methodologies’ (a) don’t reflect the real-life work of Kodaly (or others, Dalcroze/Suzuki etc) (b) imply that there is a specific ‘correct way’ (c) are almost franchises derived from the work of the original teacher and there is an implication that if you don’t pay for certification you are not accredited (not something these original teachers proposed) (d) focus purely on solfege and rhythm names and yet these are only select ‘tools’ within the bag.
I have had the wonderful fortune to be engaged in one-to-one diploma and undergraduate level training as well as delivering diploma group zoom courses recently. In my opinion, the art of excellent teaching is diagnosing the challenges that a student has and then developing strategies and techniques to help them on their journey of development.
I would very much welcome the thoughts of others on the concept of ‘methods’, certification and adapting to the learner/student!
-
Hi Robin, I am fascinated by this idea of the certificate in aural training. Is it recognition of a particular stage in the learning, or (worringly) completion of a stage. The reason I say this is because I firmly believe that aural skills is a life long learning process. So to follow your position, I agree that a paid certification is problematic if we do not a) fully recognise that any aural skill is complete after a course and b) if it is selective in the skills being taught.
So how would we respond to this? Well, we do need recognition in levels of training but what are these levels, and what do they signify? What are they recognising and what do they lead towards?
I agree that the art of teaching is diagnosing challenges and then supporting them through stages of development so that they are prepared for their future of independent, critically informed, learning. At this point I’ll stop and echo Robin’s words welcoming the thoughts of others…
-
-
Hi Paul!
I totally agree – all music learning is, of course, a journey. The challenging thing of any art is that the journey doesn’t seem to have a final destination. The other challenging thing within the arts, is measuring levels and success.
Firstly, mass applied courses for financial gain, for me, feel somehow “wrong”, especially when using the name of a renowned teacher at their helm.
Secondly, the “art of teaching” is a skill. How I taught 20 years ago is not remotely anywhere near as well as I teach now. I have learned to diagnose someone (basically a form of informal assessment in academic jargon, and am still learning every week), analyse them, find the most effective route to supporting them, work strategically and to work with them as a partnership. I used to share my esteemed wisdom and seek to pass on my gained knowledge and status; now I know that this is not good teaching at all!
However, I recognise the need for more formal assessment. Assessment gives a benchmark, especially in a diploma or degree. I wonder whether the assessment should be tied more to how it could improve performance on an instrument/voice? Surely the purpose of aural training is part of a bigger package and, whilst taught by a specialist, should be part of the wider musical picture?
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.